Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17118539]It should never have ever been illegal in the first place. There is no real reason for it to be other than personal choice becoming legislation. [editline]02:29AM[/editline] That's entirely different and out of context. Theft is illegal because it is a loss, or a destruction of property. Drugs shouldn't be illegal because they are neither a loss of life, or a loss/destruction of property. They are entirely a personal decision that should not be part of legislation.[/QUOTE] If he read my post 3-4 posts up I said all this shit. I did that so people wouldn't go "So murder should be legal too lololol"

You shouldn't allow hard drugs like amphetamine and coke. There's thousands of cases where drugged dudes kill somebody, and I don't really think someone high on crack is gonna care about laws. If the so-called "personal lawbreaking" is allowed, it will only produce more problems. All sorts of weirdos and druggies could walk on the street, free as birds, until they punch someone. That just doesn't work. Aka OP is dumb and is pissed because he's too young to gamble or use drugs, current laws are a-ok

[QUOTE=kikka;17118567]You shouldn't allow hard drugs like amphetamine and coke. There's thousands of cases where drugged dudes kill somebody, and I don't really think someone high on crack is gonna care about laws. If the so-called "personal lawbreaking" is allowed, it will only produce more problems. All sorts of weirdos and druggies could walk on the street, free as birds, until they punch someone. That just doesn't work. Aka OP is dumb and is pissed because he's too young to gamble or use drugs, current laws are a-ok[/QUOTE] When someone is caught cheating on their partner, the partner often becomes enraged. There are thousands of cases where that rage has resulted in destruction of property, or even murder. Therefor, adultery should be outlawed.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17118591]When someone is caught cheating on their partner, the partner often becomes enraged. There are thousands of cases where that rage has resulted in destruction of property, or even murder. Therefor, adultery should be outlawed.[/QUOTE] Emotion should be outlawed.

[QUOTE=kikka;17118567]You shouldn't allow hard drugs like amphetamine and coke. There's thousands of cases where drugged dudes kill somebody, and I don't really think someone high on crack is gonna care about laws. If the so-called "personal lawbreaking" is allowed, it will only produce more problems. All sorts of weirdos and druggies could walk on the street, free as birds, until they punch someone. That just doesn't work. Aka OP is dumb and is pissed because he's too young to gamble or use drugs, current laws are a-ok[/QUOTE] Aka Poster isn't intelligent enough to understand freedom. Violent actions are already outlawed. Why would we need to outlaw things that might cause them, but have an equal chance of not causing them? There's MILLIONS of cases where drug use hasn't killed anyone. Far more have not died, or killed on drug use, than those that do. All sorts of weirdos DO walk the streets. Stop trying to prevent crime that may not happen. Arrest the crime that does happen.

[QUOTE=5150Luke;17118533]Did you read what I fucking posted?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17118539] That's entirely different and out of context. Theft is illegal because it is a loss, or a destruction of property. Drugs shouldn't be illegal because they are neither a loss of life, or a loss/destruction of property. They are entirely a personal decision that should not be part of legislation.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=5150Luke;17118550]If he read my post 3-4 posts up I said all this shit. I did that so people wouldn't go "So murder should be legal too lololol"[/QUOTE] I've never stated that drugs should be made illegal, all I'm saying is you can't use the inability to contain something as an argument for the legalization of anything.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17118692]I've never stated that drugs should be made illegal, all I'm saying is you can't use the inability to contain something as an argument for the legalization of anything.[/QUOTE] I didn't. It's also not the inability to contain drug use, it's the impossiblility of stopping drug trafficking and what cartels/gangs do for or because of drugs(Note, not high, but for production or other reasons).

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17118706]I didn't.[/QUOTE] No, but he did.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17118692]I've never stated that drugs should be made illegal, all I'm saying is you can't use the inability to contain something as an argument for the legalization of anything.[/QUOTE] And I agreed with you, I stated more than just the ability to contain drugs use. [QUOTE=5150Luke;17118495]that alone does not justify it, it's one of many reasonings for the legalization of substances.[/QUOTE] [editline]10:07AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Taishu;17118711]No, but he did.[/QUOTE] where? [editline]10:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Taishu;17118692]I've never stated that drugs should be made illegal, all I'm saying is you can't use the inability to contain something as an argument for the legalization of anything.[/QUOTE] I'd understand that if all I said was my first sentence, but that combined with other reasons makes it legitimate.

[QUOTE=5150Luke;17118712]And I agreed with you, I stated more than just the ability to contain drugs use. that alone does not justify it, it's one of many reasonings for the legalization of substances. [/QUOTE] But you can't even use it as [i]one[/i] of the arguments. It's a useless argument. [QUOTE=5150Luke;17118712]where?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=5150Luke]Drugs should be legal. People will do them whether it's illegal, or legal.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uberkitty;17108472]Same as the age of majority, eighteen.[/QUOTE] Why eighteen? That's a moral based law and it varies from place to place. In sweden, the age of consent is 15. In canada, the age of onsent is 14. In japan, the age of consent is 13.

[QUOTE=Simski;17118751]Why eighteen? That's a moral based law and it varies from place to place. In sweden, the age of consent is 15. In canada, the age of onsent is 14. In japan, the age of consent is 13.[/QUOTE] That isn't a moral based rule. It's arbitrary. Like it is everywhere else.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17118746]But you can't even use it as [i]one[/i] of the arguments. It's a useless argument.[/QUOTE] Why keep something banned if it doesn't hurt anyone but the person who does it and people do it anyways? Why limit freedom like that? And yea, I can use it as a arguement. If nobody disobeyed the law then prohibition of the substance would have worked, look at alcohol prohibition. The law was so commonly disreguarded that it got repealed. If the state had it "under control" i'm sure they would have not have repealed the ammendment banning alcohol.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17118763]That isn't a moral based rule. It's arbitrary. Like it is everywhere else.[/QUOTE] Right, not to familiar with certain fancy words sicne I'm in the country listed that has the age of consent being 15 :S But why eighteen anyway? Sure it's a sad thing what the world is coming to, kids havign sex at all ages these days. However why deny our human nature and make it illegal at an age that people clearly feel that they are ready? If they don't feel they are ready, just say no and the person can't do anythign unless he wants to go to jail for rape :S

[url]http://itssafe.tk[/url]

[QUOTE=Simski;17118796]Right, not to familiar with certain fancy words sicne I'm in the country listed that has the age of consent being 15 :S But why eighteen anyway? Sure it's a sad thing what the world is coming to, kids havign sex at all ages these days. However why deny our human nature and make it illegal at an age that people clearly feel that they are ready? If they don't feel they are ready, just say no and the person can't do anythign unless he wants to go to jail for rape :S[/QUOTE] Kids having sex is hardly a horrible thing from any perspective but that of a puritanical world. In reality, it's fine, and kids would be having sex either way. 18 is picked because it's a scientific ideal that your brain is ready at that age to make full decisions. Whether you can make them before that is up for debate, and I think it's too much of a personal question than anything else. The age of consent here is 16, which is imo, perfect. Oh, there's also the age to protect kids. Kids do need protection as they can't make informed decisions. So, that's a good reason.

[QUOTE=5150Luke;17118770]Why keep something banned if it doesn't hurt anyone but the person who does it and people do it anyways? Why limit freedom like that? And yea, I can use it as a arguement. If nobody disobeyed the law then prohibition of the substance would have worked, look at alcohol prohibition. The law was so commonly disreguarded that it got repealed. If the state had it "under control" i'm sure they would have not have repealed the ammendment banning alcohol.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that if we get more laws against drugs, that people will stop using them. In fact we probably share a lot of viewpoints on that subject. I'm just saying you can't use it to justify it morally.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17118855]I'm not saying that if we get more laws against drugs, that people will stop using them. In fact we probably share a lot of viewpoints on that subject. I'm just saying you can't use it to justify it morally.[/QUOTE] Nothing should be justified morally. Morals are non existent, and often ill-informed or backed up with bad reasons.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17118855]I'm not saying that if we get more laws against drugs, that people will stop using them. In fact we probably share a lot of viewpoints on that subject. I'm just saying you can't use it to justify it morally.[/QUOTE] It's pretty logical from my point of view.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17118878]Nothing should be justified morally. Morals are non existent, and often ill-informed or backed up with bad reasons.[/QUOTE] Morality does exist. A society without morality isn't a sustainable society.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17119098]Morality does exist. A society without morality isn't a sustainable society.[/QUOTE] Depends on how you think of morals. If you think of morals as god given, then you'd be wrong in a million ways. If you're talking about human societal standers that are strictly there due to social Darwinism? Things should be based morally, they should be based logically.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17119168]Depends on how you think of morals. If you think of morals as god given, then you'd be wrong in a million ways. If you're talking about human societal standers that are strictly there due to social Darwinism? Things should be based morally, they should be based logically.[/QUOTE] You needn't to worry, I don't believe in a god or a higher divine moral.

[QUOTE=Taishu;17119098]Morality does exist. A society without morality isn't a sustainable society.[/QUOTE] Morals do exist yes, but they are not universal. Morals are completely subjective and personal.

[QUOTE=billeh!;17108347]Drug laws protect people from serious drugs like heroin etc.[/QUOTE] If someone ends up in hospital for taking heroin it's their own goddamn fault most of the time. Actually, why do we even send people to hospital for free if their illnesses are self-inflicted (and not accidental, unless that accident was caused by extreme carelessness)? [QUOTE=Nyaos;17108757]18 is the limit because when you're younger, you don't really know what is in your best interest.[/QUOTE] Yeah because we should totally forbid people to make false decisions :rolleyes: You wouldn't throw an adult in jail because he gets himself fired by not going to work, would you? [quote]While you think touching the old man's penis is just harmless fun, it's going to be a thought that sickens you and fucks with you the rest of your life.[/quote] That's because the world tells you that it's wrong for no apparent reason (i.e. morality). [QUOTE=Cheezy;17108844]Most laws are in effect to protect people, even legislations that prohibit victimless crimes such as the use and posession of drugs are ultimately in effect for peoples' protection.[/QUOTE] In my opinion it's no one's business to forcefully protect others [i]from themselves[/i] Seems like I've found my thread again. Bet this has all been said already but I'm too lazy to read 17 more pages. Rate me Bad Reading if you must.

I think that laws should be based on logic and substantial evidence. Of course, most people here think they'd enjoy a society like this, but it likely isn't the case.

Drugs should be regulated in the EXACT same way alcohol is right now

[QUOTE=SickJits;17117991]you can't keep to yourself when you're on hard substances, trust me, I know[/QUOTE] So basically you're trying to blame your being a douche on drugs and not the fact that you have acted like a douche. Alcoholics say the same thing when they run down innocent people in their car. [editline]01:42PM[/editline] It isn't MY fault I'm a piece of shit, it's the DRUG'S fault! [editline]01:45PM[/editline] Get the fuck over yourself.

One time I smoked some weed and then I did Lankist's mom. [editline]06:54PM[/editline] True story.

[QUOTE=Malumbre;17118361]I don't do anything hard, but I smoke weed. I still go to work. [editline]04:57AM[/editline] No, you can't keep to yourself when you're on hard substances.[/QUOTE] So me and a group of my friends smoking speed at 2 in the morning then causing havoc in huntington beach is EVERYONE keeping to themselves Here's the thing; people that smoke meth/speed for work reasons have that mind set before they get high so they can do their job. Then they do their job, stay quiet and keep to themselves, then once they get off that shift and go to their other shift (usually people that do that have 2 shifts) work that, same thing as before. When they go home, they'll usually pick and scratch at them selves (if they've been high for a while) then they'll sit around and do various things for a long time. Clean, clear out old trash, etc. etc. With me it was usually house work. Then they would be so tired because the meth/speed wore off right at the start of their work the next day. That's right, you don't sleep. So they'll get high again and repeat the whole process. Most people do this all week, then sleep for a whole day on the weekend and eat. (most addicts that have jobs) So, by your logic, the thousands of people doing this should not face any repremands because it's only harming themselves and their keeping to themselves? That's stupid. In three, four months most of these people lose their jobs because of their inability to function properly at work, lose their home, get methrot (tooth decay) and become homeless. While jails may not be completely drug free, it's a shit load harder to get them their and costs alot more to maintain a habit. [editline]11:24AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;17122449]So basically you're trying to blame your being a douche on drugs and not the fact that you have acted like a douche. Alcoholics say the same thing when they run down innocent people in their car. [editline]01:42PM[/editline] It isn't MY fault I'm a piece of shit, it's the DRUG'S fault! [editline]01:45PM[/editline] Get the fuck over yourself.[/QUOTE] no, basically you're being a completely assuming ass hole like you usually are and trying to blame it on my former recreational (lol) drug use get over YOURself

Our entire society is based on morality. It works more often than not.